Our American Revolution Round Table discusses Molly Pitcher, and other various topics with Dr. Linda Grant DePauw, History Professor Emeritus of George Washington University.
This discussion features an interview with Linda Grant DePauw, Professor Emerita of George Washington University and author of several books on the American Revolution, including Founding Mothers, Seafaring Women, and Battle Cries and Lullabies. The conversation centers around her book, "In Search of Molly Pitcher," which is described as a fictional account of a student's quest to uncover the true origins of the Molly Pitcher story.
DePauw decided to write "In Search of Molly Pitcher" because people continually asked her about the legendary figure, even after she had dedicated sections in her non-fiction works to the topic. Realizing that traditional scholarly articles or books weren't reaching the public effectively due to a deep resonance people have with Molly Pitcher, DePauw chose to write a storybook.
The book is a fictional account, mostly dialogue, about a stubborn grade school girl named Peggy McAllister who researches Molly Pitcher for a school contest with the help of her retired private investigator great-grandpa. A significant purpose of the book is to explain good and bad methods of historical research, helping readers understand how to find better sources and navigate the frustrations of historical inquiry.
The Myth and Reality of Molly Pitcher
The book aims to explain the confusion surrounding Molly Pitcher's identity and origins, highlighting that there wasn't a lot of easy fact-checking in early history, leading to various stories being copied from potentially unreliable sources.
The story of Molly Pitcher is depicted as having various and contradictory sources from its early beginnings. She has been "located" at different battles, including Brandywine and Fort Washington, though the well-known story is associated with the Battle of Monmouth.
The name "Molly Pitcher" itself doesn't appear in sources until an 1848 drawing by Currier & Ives, by which time anyone who might have known her personally would likely have been deceased.
The discussion suggests that Molly Pitcher may not be one specific person but rather a composite figure, with elements from various real women like Mary Ludwig Hayes and Margaret Corbin, whose stories became conflated into the myth.
Modern educational materials for children are sometimes criticized for oversimplifying or even making up dramatically inaccurate facts about Molly Pitcher, such as her fighting and dying heroically at the Battle of Saratoga.
DePauw and the host discuss the evolution of research methods, contrasting the "old fashion technology" of interlibrary loans (which involved significant time and potential for drama) with modern internet and computer research.
Despite technological advancements, the challenges of finding accurate direct sources, dealing with mixed-up facts, and identifying copied misinformation persist in the internet age.
The importance of visiting historical sites like battlefields is emphasized, as it provides a deeper understanding of the environment and potentially unearths local sources or perspectives not available online.
The conversation touches on the difficulty of proving historical facts, especially for less well-known figures, and how different perspectives can lead to genuinely varied accounts of the same event.
Historical fiction and mediums like the musical Hamilton are seen as valuable tools for making history "come alive" and sparking interest in the past, even if they take liberties for entertainment.
DePauw's specialty in early American history shifted to military women after a museum exhibit catalog featured a woman with a musket, prompting questions about women carrying weapons. This led her to establish the Minerva Center to encourage the study of women in war.
Her book, "Founding Mothers," was specifically aimed at a middle school audience, distinguishing it from other historians' works written for academic peers.
DePauw is in the early planning stages of an audio version of "In Search of Molly Pitcher," envisioning a fully historically accurate production with a voice cast, including her dream of having Margaret O'Brien play the lead role of Peggy McAllister.
This discussion, hosted by Jake Sconyers of the Hub History podcast and featuring Mike Troy of the American Revolution Podcast, commemorates the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, detailing the battle itself and discussing the American Revolution Podcast. What follows is a summary of the discussion:
The Battle of Bunker Hill: Context and Prelude
The Battle of Bunker Hill, fought on June 17, 1775, was the largest Revolutionary War battle in the Boston area and the bloodiest for the British side. Following the April outbreak of war and the siege of Boston, the British initially expected the American provincial army to disperse. However, the arrival of British reinforcements in late May, along with three new senior generals—William Howe, Henry Clinton, and Johnny Burgoyne—changed the dynamic. These generals, who arrived on a ship named the Cerberus (a three-headed dog guarding the gates of hell in mythology, a detail not lost on anyone at the time), brought instructions from London for General Gage to take more aggressive action. Gage, having faced the Americans at Lexington and Concord, understood their resolve, but the new generals and London believed the militia were pushovers. There was also internal pressure on Gage, as the new generals were "gunning for his job," prompting him to be more aggressive.
The British developed an offensive plan to capture two key areas of high ground: Bunker Hill to the north and Dorchester Heights to the south, to prevent Americans from bombarding Boston or its harbor. News of this plan leaked to the provincials via an anonymous merchant, prompting them to act first.
American Preparations and Command
The provincial army was a "complete mess," consisting of ununited militia groups from various states, nominally headed by Massachusetts's Artemis Ward. Despite higher-ranking generals, Colonel William Prescott, a veteran of King George's War and the Seven Years War (where he fought in the siege of Louisbourg and was even offered a commission in the regular army), was chosen to lead the ground operation.
Initially, the goal was to occupy Bunker Hill, but upon surveying the terrain, the forces decided to build their entrenchments on the more aggressive Breeds Hill, closer to the water for potential cannon fire against ships. They constructed a main redoubt, approximately 136 feet square, and breastworks (dirt walls) on either side. While they did not bring artillery overnight, cannons were brought in the morning, and a portal was improvised by firing a cannonball through the mud wall. The American forces, initially 1,200 men, dwindled to about 500 by morning due to desertions. These were largely exhausted farmers and civilians, not professional soldiers. Logistics were severely lacking, with no water, food, or consistent ammunition resupply.
Despite the disorganization, key officers made strategic adjustments on the field:
Colonel Stark (New Hampshire militia) recognized the American left flank along the Mystic River was exposed. He positioned his men behind a picket fence and supplemented them with field cannons, admonishing them to hold fire until the British were very close (about 30 feet), a tactic similar to the famous "whites of their eyes" instruction.
General Israel Putnam focused on placing artillery on Bunker Hill to protect the American right flank, deterring a British attack from that direction. He even taught infantrymen to operate cannons in real-time, using soup ladles to load powder due to mismatched cannonball sizes.
Major General Joseph Warren, though titular head of the provincial congress and suffering from migraines, arrived before the main British attack and served as a volunteer infantryman, commanding about 50 men. Crossing Charles Town Neck was dangerous due to British chainshot fire.
The British Assaults
The British were aware of the American activity overnight but decided to wait until daylight to attack. General Howe, the senior officer, opted for a direct frontal assault over Clinton's flanking strategy. Initially, 2,300 troops were committed, with reserves joining throughout the day, bringing the total to 3,000-3,500. Before the infantry assault, British ships and a battery at Cops Hill fired on the American defenses, but this artillery bombardment was largely ineffective, causing only one American casualty. The British also burned Charles Town to dislodge American sharpshooters.
First Assault: General Howe ordered a two-pronged attack. Brigadier General Robert Pigot led a frontal "feint" on the redoubt to distract, while the main British force aimed for Stark's men on the American left flank. Stark's disciplined fire, holding until close range and firing in volleys from three rows, decimated the British lines, with some units suffering 90% casualties. Prescott's men at the redoubt used similar tactics, causing heavy British losses. Both prongs were repelled.
Second Assault: Happened quickly after the first, with "full-throated assaults" on both the center and flank. General Howe personally led this wave, miraculously escaping injury while many officers around him were shot. Despite significant casualties, the British again faced devastating fire from the entrenched Americans.
Third Assault: By this point, the American defenders in the redoubt had dwindled to about 120, and most were critically low on ammunition, resorting to using gunpowder from broken artillery shells or even pebbles as projectiles. General Howe changed tactics:
He sent his soldiers up in three columns instead of lines, making it easier to maintain formation on the uneven terrain and presenting less of a target line.
He ordered soldiers to remove their heavy packs.
Crucially, he ordered them not to load their guns but to fix bayonets and charge, relying on the Americans' lack of ammunition and bayonets.
The Americans, though exhausted, showed "amazing discipline," holding fire until the British were within 15 feet. The initial volley was "relentless" and "devastating," causing the British assault to stall. However, Major John Pitcairn's Marines, leading the charge, broke through after Pitcairn himself was shot and killed. With the redoubt breached and out of ammunition, most Americans retreated, using muskets as clubs to hold off the British. Joseph Warren, fighting in the rear guard with Colonel Prescott, was shot in the head and bayoneted multiple times, his body "completely obliterated". Stark's men also retreated, and the heaviest American casualties occurred during the mad rush to escape across Charles Town Neck, under fire from the British Navy. The British did not pursue further, having achieved their objective of taking Bunker Hill.
Aftermath and Legacy
Technically a British victory, as they gained the Charles Town Peninsula and set up defensive lines on Bunker Hill. However, the cost was staggering. It was the bloodiest battle for the British in the Revolutionary War, with over 1,000 casualties (dead or wounded) out of 5,000-6,000 total troops in Boston. Many wounded later died due to poor medical care. The heavy losses forced the British to abandon their plan to take Dorchester Heights.
Bunker Hill had a profound impact on both sides' strategies:
For the British: It disabused Generals Howe, Clinton, and Burgoyne of the notion that American militia were pushovers, confirming Gage's warnings. It made them much more cautious, keeping them on the defensive in Boston until their final evacuation. Clinton himself reportedly remarked that "one more victory like this and it's all over for us British".
For the Americans: It significantly boosted morale, proving that militia would stand and fight toe-to-toe with regulars. American officer Nathaniel Greene famously quipped, I would love to sell the British another hill at a similar price.
If you want to learn more about the Hub History Podcast, go to HUBhistory.com
Last week we covered the ratification of the Constitution by the largest state, Virginia, bringing the total to 10 states. The other really critical state remaining was New York.
New York is Reluctant
The empire state was skeptical of the new constitution before it was even written. Governor George Clinton had dominated New York politics for years. He had served as governor since 1777, when the position was first established. Before that he has served in the New York’s General Assembly, the Continental Congress, and as a general in the Continental Army. He was extremely popular, and was even elected both governor and lieutenant governor in 1777.
Clinton was also a political opponent of Alexander Hamilton. The newcomer to New York Politics inherited Clinton’s wrath by marriage. While Hamilton and Clinton had gotten along well as fellow Continental officers during the war, Hamilton had married the daughter of Philip Schuyler, who was probably Clinton’s strongest political opponent in earlier times. Hamilton took up many of the same political causes that Schuyler had advocated once Hamilton began serving in the NY state legislature and the Confederation Congress.
When Hamilton introduced a motion to send five delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Clinton was skeptical. The governor had his supporters in the legislature reduce the number of delegates to three, and sent Hamilton along with two strong ideological opponents of a stronger federal government, State Senator Abraham Yates, Mayor of Albany John Lansing. These two delegates assured that New York would oppose Hamilton’s vision of a much more powerful federal government. Both of these men left the Convention early to inform Clinton about what was happening. Their absence meant that New York could not vote on anything else at the convention since it required at least two votes. Hamilton would be the only NY delegate to sign the Constitution.
Clinton found his base of political power in the small yeoman farmers of New York. These were opposed to the merchants in the city, and the large land owning aristocratic leaders like Phillip Schuyler. Clinton also acted as a moderate. Keeping in mind his political base, he still tried to put forward moderate policies that would benefit everyone. New York had avoided much of the strife and economic difficulties that New England experienced in the post war era. This had allowed him to continue serving as a popular four term governor by 1788.
Doctors Riot
New York still had its issues. In 1786, Clinton had called out the militia to help suppress some spillover from Shays’ Rebellion. In 1788, while in the middle of the debate over ratification, Clinton had to call out the militia again. This time for the doctor’s riot in New York City. The doctor’s riot had nothing to do with the Constitution or national politics, but it is an interesting story, that happened at this time, so I suppose I should give it a quick mention.
There is some question about the story that sparked the riot. While it seems to have some basis in fact, parts of it may have been made up or exaggerated. In any event, I’ll give you the story and you can decide.
In April of 1788, a group of boys were playing near a lab at New York Hospital and saw a medical student dissecting a woman. The boys wondered who the woman was, the student responded in a particularly “New York” way, and told them the body was “your mother”. By coincidence, one of the boys had recently lost his mother. He went home to tell his father. His father then picked up a shovel and dug up his wife’s grave. It was empty. There is no evidence that the body the med student was working on was actually this same person. Medical students had, for years, been digging up fresh graves for dissection. More accurately, they would often pay grave robbers for bringing them fresh bodies, no questions asked.
Typically robbers would take bodies from the Negro Burial Ground, or the potter’s field for poor people, which did not raise much fuss, at least not among people who had the power to do anything about it. But in February, 1788, a newspaper reported that a white woman’s body had been stolen from Trinity Churchyard. So when this event happened in April, New Yorkers were already primed for action.
A mob quickly formed and stormed the hospital, causing doctors and medical students to flee. The mob found three bodies, one boiling in a kettle to remove flesh from the bones, and two others cut up, with parts hanging around the room. The mob destroyed the rooms, and took much of the specimens into the street, where they were burned in a large fire. There was some effort to throw a couple of medical students who had been captured into the fire as well. But the sheriff arrived and removed them to jail for their own protection.
After discussing the matter further that evening, probably in taverns, many memes of the public decided that more action was needed. A mob of hundreds of people surrounded Columbia College. Alexander Hamilton appeared and tried to calm the mob. They pushed him aside and entered the areas where they thought they might find bodies or body parts. The staff had removed them the night before. Still unhappy, the mob, which grew to about 5000, broke into the houses of several doctors, searching for bodies.
They finally ended up at the jail, demanding access to the medical students who had been arrested the day before. The prisoners had to fend off attacks with rocks and bricks. When one of the rioters got inside the jail, the guards killed him, which only angered the rioters even more. Several more prominent leaders tried to quell the violence. John Jay was hit in the head with a rock. The former general Baron von Steuben, was hit with a brick. Hundreds of militia rushed to the jail. Clinton had sent them with strict orders not to fire on the mob. However, when the mob attack the militia, they fired in self defense. At least three rioters and three militiamen were killed in the fight, although some observers put the death count at twenty.
In the following days, many doctors published ads proclaiming that they had never taken a body from anywhere in the city. This, of course ignored the fact that potter’s field and the Negro Burying ground were outside the city limits. Vigilantes formed “Dead Guard Men” armed groups that patrolled the cemeteries night and day to prevent grave robbing. A grand jury investigated the riots, but never resulted in any convictions.
The issue seemed to subside after that, and there is no evidence that this had any impact on the debates over ratification, although the riots took place only a week or two before the elections of delegates to New York’s ratifying convention.
Antifederalist Arguments
Despite the occasional riot, New York was doing pretty well and things were pretty stable, especially when compared to New England. Even so, New York had a divide similar to those in other states. The merchant class, particularly in New York City, favored the new constitution, which they believed would improve trade and establish more economic stability across the continent.
At the same time farmers throughout the state opposed the constitution. One reason New York was doing well was because of the massive revenues from tariffs collected in New York City. This allowed the state to keep other taxes lower, meaning small farmers were not hit as hard with state taxes. The new constitution would give those tariff revenues to the federal government, meaning the state would likely have to increase property taxes, hitting hard on struggling farmers. New York had also confiscated a large amount of land from loyalists. The new constitution was seen as a way for these loyalists to sue for the return of their property, pursuant to the peace treaty of 1783. Patriot farmers who may have obtained this land a decade ago, might find themselves thrown off of their farms.
Governor Clinton’s political base rested with these farmers who opposed the new constitution. He was in no hurry to get behind it. He also did not come out forcefully against it. In the fall of 1787 the state assembly was not in session, and Governor Clinton saw no reason to call a special session to consider the constitution.
The two New York delegates who had opposed Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention, Yates, and Lansing, began writing articles and essays in opposition to the Constitution, arguing that it would destroy New York’s sovereignty. We see many of the arguments made in other states: the Convention in Philadelphia had exceeded its authority, there was no bill of rights, and so on. One very local objection was giving up the revenue from the Port of New York. Opponents also seized on the Senate in particular as being an aristocratic body.
Federalist Papers
Of course, the federalists fought for ratification in the state. Leading that fight was Alexander Hamilton. As early as July of 1787, two months before the convention in Philadelphia even ended, Hamilton had published an anonymous article criticizing the governor’s lack of support for the convention. He argued the governor was more concerned about protecting his own power than the national good.
Beginning in late October, about a month after the Philadelphia Convention had ended, Hamilton published his first essay in favor of ratification and extolling the virtues of the new Constitution.
Hamilton hoped to recruit others to help write a series of articles explaining the benefits of the Constitution and encouraging New Yorkers to support its ratification. The first man he sought for help was fellow New Yorker John Jay.
Hamilton also reached out to William Duer, another New York finance guy. Duer wrote one or two essays. Hamilton, however, did not consider his work up to the task, and removed him from the project. Hamilton also reached out to Gouverneur Morris. Morris had been a Pennsylvania delegate to the Convention, but had lived most of his life in New York, and had recently purchased a new home in the state. Morris, however, was too busy to get involved in the project. Hamilton then turned out of state, to James Madison of Virginia.
Hamilton, Jay, and Madison worked out a plan to divide the essays into their areas of expertise. Jay, who had served as a diplomat in Europe and who had negotiated several treaties, focused on foreign relations. Madison had long studied the history of ancient republics. Many of his essays focused on historical reasons for why the Constitution had certain features. The author of the Virginia plan also focused on the many checks and balances in the new government, and how they would prevent factions that were prevalent in many state governments from being able to take control of federal power. Hamilton focused more on the executive branch, the judiciary, as well as taxation and the military.
It was common practice for both advocates and opponents to publish their essays under pseudonyms, usually drawn from ancient Rome. Antifederalists in New York commonly published under the name Brutus or Cato. Some historians suspect that Governor Clinton himself was Cato. Initially, Hamilton had begun publishing simply as “Citizen of New York”. However, once Madison joined the team from Virginia, that would no longer work. The team chose to publish under the pseudonym “Publius” after Publius Valerius Poplicola. He was one of the leaders of the effort to overthrow the Roman monarchy and helped form the Roman Republic around 500 BC.
Jay only ended up writing only a few essays. He wrote four of the first five, but then fell sick in early December and could not really contribute over the next few critical months. Some authors say that Jay was absent because he was injured in the Doctors Riot. In truth, Jay had a flare up of rheumatism that prevented more activity. He did write one more essay toward the end of the series.
Hamilton wrote the majority of the papers, with 51 credited to his pen, and 29 to Madison. Another 16 essays are in dispute, with many scholars arguing they were jointly written by both Madison and Hamilton. Since all were published anonymously, there is no clear record on the point. They were published first as individual essays in New York papers.
A first volume of essays was published in March of 1788 containing the first 36. A second volume at the end of May included the later essays, 37-77, with essays 78-85 published for the first time in that volume. These were influential in explaining the benefits of the new Constitution and have been used by Constitutional scholars ever since, but it’s not clear how much of an impact they had on New York voters.
Ratifying Convention
Governor Clinton did not call for a special session in the fall of 1787. Instead, he waited until the regular opening of the new session in January of 1788. He sent the legislature, not only the constitution, but the letters he had received from Yates and Lansing explaining why they had left the convention early and including all of their criticisms. Clinton did not say anything for or against the Constitution at that time, but simply handed it to the legislature.
For several weeks, advocates were concerned that the legislature might not even call a convention at all. There were several close votes on how to characterize the convention. But in the end, the legislators agreed overwhelmingly that this was a decision for the people and that it would be an abuse of their power not to call a convention at all. They voted in February to hold elections two months later, in late April and early May. This was the same time that legislative elections were held. They also opened the elections to all adult free white males, eliminating the property requirement that existed for electing legislators. The convention would take place in Poughkeepsie beginning on June 17.
New York had two pretty well-organized political parties, even if they did not really have names. They centered around politicians, with one faction backing Governor Clinton, and the other centered around Schuyler and Hamilton. Those in favor were called federalists. Those opposed sometimes called themselves antifederalists, but also went by the name republicans.
There were twelve newspapers in New York state, all of which were run by federalists. Only one newspaper printed a substantial number of anti-federalist articles. The anti-federalists published their own pamphlets which they distributed statewide.
Because of the highly partisan nature of the debate, when the delegate votes were released in late may, there were 46 antifederalist delegates and only 19 federalists. All of the federalist delegates came from New York City and the surrounding counties. The rest of the state voted overwhelmingly anti-federalist.
The federalists then put their hopes in the fact that other states were likely to bring the Constitution into effect without New York. That would mean the question would turn from keeping the Confederation or the new federal government to New York could choose to join the new union or not. The confederation would be dead.
The federalists hoped to draw out convention debate in order to buy time for news from other states to arrive. This seemed to work.
When the Convention began, there were still only eight states which had ratified. On June 24, the Convention learned that New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify, thus bringing the Constitution into effect. A week later, on July 2, delegates learned of Virginia’s ratification.
Albany Riot
News of Virginia’s ratification just before Independence Day had varied reactions. The Anti-federalists saw the new Constitution as a threat to their liberty and independence. On July 4, a group of anti-federalists in Albany held a public burning of the Constitution. In response, the federalists held a parade celebrating the Constitution that evening.
The Anti-federalists formed a mob, armed with clubs stones, and bayonets, to stop the parade. These were not just local thugs. Yates and Lansing were among those in the anti-federalist mob. Both sides had been drinking heavily. The federalists outnumbered the anti-federalists who retreated into a nearby house. The federalists then besieged the house for some time before the defenders surrendered and were arrested.
The riots resulted in about 18 seriously injured and one man killed by a bayonet. Despite the violence, work at the convention continued.
Ratification
Word of Virginia’s ratification began to divide the anti-federalist majority at the Convention. As we saw in Virginia, the debate at the convention turned from yes or no to the Constitution to one of either voting for ratification, or voting for an alternative with lots of amendments to make the new government more acceptable. New York did not want to be outside the Union, especially with a hostile British Army on its northern border in Quebec. New Yorkers recognized the continued need for participation in the Union.
There was also the issue of whether New York would remain the seat for the new federal government. Obviously if New York refused to join, Congress would move to another state.
The Convention came up with a whole range of amendments to the Constitution. They also voted to send a circular letter to the other states calling for a second convention to consider amendments. Like other states we’ve discussed, New York wanted a bill of rights, as well as a whole range of other more substantive changes.
Then the debate turned to whether ratification would be unconditional or conditional on these amendments. Lansing proposed a vote on conditional ratification. Federalists argued that without an unconditional ratification, New York would have no say in writing any amendments since it would not join the Union until after they were passed. It would be much better to have New York participate in the amendment process as part of the Union. Federalists also raised the argument that if the convention refused to ratify, that New York City and its surrounding counties might secede from the state of New York and join the United States on their own.
One July 23, the delegates broke the fighting when several anti-federalists agreed to change their proposal to vote for ratification “on express condition” of the adoption of amendments to “in full confidence” that the amendments would be adopted. This made the vote for ratification unconditional and allowed New York to join the new government. On July 23, the convention voted 31 to 29 in favor of the new wording, despite the opposition of Governor Clinton and other anti-federalist leaders like Yates and Lansing. Three days later, the delegates voted 30 to 27 to finalize ratification.
New York would become the 11th state to join the union.
Next week, the Confederation Congress begins the process of establishing the new federal government.
T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com
American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give. Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"
Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!
Last week, we covered the states that ratified the Constitution in the spring of 1788. We ended with the ninth state, New Hampshire, which managed to overcome intensive opposition to squeak through a “yes” vote at its second convention. New Hampshire’s ratification brought the number of states to nine, meaning the Constitution came into effect. Of course, it would still take time to hold elections and create the new government, so the Confederation Congress remained in operation.
Four states, of course, still had not approved it. Virginia, by far the largest state, was still considering the matter. Many questioned whether a Union would work without them. This week, we look at the ratification fight in Virginia.
Thanks to the efforts of James Madison, Virginia had been the state that had proposed the Constitutional Convention in the first place. Despite that effort, ratification in the commonwealth was not a given. Two of the three delegates who had refused to sign the final document were from Virginia. One of those men who had refused to sign was Edmund Randolph, the state’s governor.
Edmund Randolph
I haven’t discussed Randolph, except in passing, so some background is probably in order. Randolph came from a prominent Virginia family. His Uncle Peyton Randolph had been the Speaker of the House of Burgesses before the war, then served as President of the First Continental Congress, as well as the first president of the Second Continental Congress. Randolph left the Second Continental Congress after only a few days, due to illness, opening up the job for John Hancock. Peyton returned later that year, only to die rather suddenly, while dining with his cousin, Thomas Jefferson.
Edmund’s father, John Randolph, was not quite as prominent, but did serve as Mayor of Williamsburg before the war. John did not support the Revolution along with his brother. He fled to Scotland after the war began, leaving with the Royal Governor Lord Dunmore. His twenty-two year old son, Edmund Randolph did not share his father’s views. He remained behind and joined the Continental Army, serving as an aide to George Washington.
He only remained in that role for a few months. When Uncle Peyton died in 1775, Edmund returned to Virginia to settle his estate. Edmund remained in Virginia, becoming the attorney general in 1776, at age 23. He remained in that role for a decade before being elected governor in 1786. Governor Randolph called for the Philadelphia Convention. He led the Virginia delegation, and introduced Madison’s Virginia Plan at the Convention.
Despite his refusal to sign the Constitution, Randolph had played a pretty active role in drafting the document, serving on the final Committee of Detail that pretty much wrote the final version. Randolph did not make clear his decision not to sign until about a week before the signing. Randolph argued that the Constitution was not sufficiently republican. He believed it it gave too much power to the president. The House was too small. There were no limits on a standing army. He also found unacceptable the representation in the Senate by state, and the ability to pass commercial legislation by a simple majority.
Rather than sending the document out for ratification, Randolph had wanted the states to recommend changes, then hold a second convention to make some important corrections. Until that happened, he could not support it. Despite his refusal to sign, Randolph was not a full-throated opponent. Before leaving Philadelphia, he told the delegates that he simply wanted to keep his options open at his state’s ratifying convention.
Perhaps part of Randolph’s reluctance was out of his respect for the views of George Mason, who also refused to sign. Despite his position as governor, Randolph was the youngest delegate from Virginia, and one of the youngest delegates overall at the convention, only 34 years old at the time. Mason was the oldest member of the Virginia delegation at age 62.
George Mason
Like Randolph, Mason had also supported the Virginia plan, but became increasingly disillusioned with the final document. Mason also came from a prominent Virginia family. He was actually George Mason IV. His great-grandfather, George Mason I, had come to Virginia near its founding, following the end of the English civil war, where he had found himself on the losing side. The Mason’s had long served in the House of Burgesses and George continued in that role.
Mason was also the next door neighbor to George Washington at Mount Vernon. Mason had been an active patriot during the war, serving in several state conventions after declaring independence. He had written the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, as part of his efforts to create Virginia’s state constitution.
When the Revolutionary War ended, Mason tried to retire from public service, but his importance in establishing the state constitution, caused many to compel him to continue. He served at the Annapolis Convention in 1786, and then as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. Mason grew increasingly disenchanted with the constitution over the course of the convention.
As someone who had authored a declaration of rights for a state constitution, he was deeply bothered by the absence of one for the new Federal Constitution. He also argued that the House was too small to give proper representation, the judiciary was too powerful, and that the lack of a supermajority for commercial legislation would greatly disadvantage southern states. He also said that presidential power was too large and should be limited through an executive council. Also, despite being a slave owner, Mason wanted to give the government the power to end the slave trade immediately. He wanted to see slavery come to an end.
Near the end of the Philadelphia Convention, Mason had moved to add a declaration of rights. This was unanimously rejected. He also called for a vote on allowing states to propose amendments. The majority also rejected that motion.
Mason did not mince words, he told the delegates that the Constitution would eventually lead to “a monarchy or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy” and that he would “sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands.”
Unlike Randolph, who was still taking a wait and see approach, Mason was a full-throated opponent of ratification. As soon as he got home, he began writing and publishing his reasons why Virginia should refuse to ratify.
Other Anti-Federalists
The anti-federalist leaders in the state went beyond these two former delegates. Former Governor Patrick Henry strongly opposed ratification. He quickly put his oratorical skills to use opposing ratification for a whole host of reasons. He believed a powerful federal government would work against Virginia’s interests and that Virginia would be better off on its own that to join such a union.
Another prominent opponent was former President of the Confederation Congress, Richard Henry Lee, the same man who, in 1776, had made the famous motion that the colonies should become free and independent states. Lee had refused an appointment to the Constitutional Convention since he was serving in the Confederation Congress at the time. Lee believed that the convention would simply make recommended changes to be brought before Congress. He was quite upset by the decision to bypass Congress and go directly to the states. Beyond that, Lee shared similar concerns as voiced by the other opponents about the document itself, believing that it would greatly harm Virginia.
One other ratification opponent, although not as prominent at the time, was James Monroe. At 29 years old, Monroe had already served as an officer in the Continental Army, then as a delegate to the Confederation Congress. In 1786, he resigned to come home and pass the bar. He began working as an attorney and got elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. Monroe was not completely opposed to the Constitution, and actually made statements both before and against at the ratifying convention, but did object to its ratification without a bill of rights.
Federalists
On the other side, James Madison was the most prominent supporter of the proposed Constitution. This had been a passion that Madison had been pushing for years. While he was not crazy about some of the compromises that he had to make at the Philadelphia Convention, he was convinced that a failure to ratify would mean the end of the United States and probably everything that has worked and fought for during most of their lives.
Of course, George Washington probably had the greatest potential influence on almost any public matter. Washington seemed to share Madison’s views about the importance of ratification, and said so in private letters. Washington, however, did not see himself in the role of a public advocate.
Washington rejected the opportunity even to attend the state’s ratifying convention, while encouraging Madison to go. Even Madison himself was reluctant to go, believing that it was a conflict of interest for him to have been a part in writing it, and then play a role in voting to ratify it. It was only after Washington urged him to go so that he could explain why the Convention produced the document that it did, that he finally agreed to go.
Scheduling the Convention
When the legislature started its new session on October 15, 1787, Governor Randolph introduced the proposed constitution. The legislature put it on the schedule for consideration, ten days later on October 25. When they finally took up the matter, members spent a week debating the merits of the Constitution, and whether they should even have a ratifying convention. On October 31, the legislature agreed to hold elections in March, 1788. Each county would send two delegates. Towns that were independently represented in the General Assembly could also send a representative to the convention. Following the elections, two more months would pass before the Convention began on June 2 at the state house in Richmond.
Convention Debates
Judge Edmund Pendleton was elected to chair the convention. Shortly after the convention began, Patrick Henry rose to give a famous speech called Liberty or Empire in which he argued that by creating this new empire the people were giving up on government with a foundation on liberty. The following is a snippet of his speech:
We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism.
The convention agreed unanimously to go through the Constitution clause by clause, not holding any votes until that was completed. The Virginia delegates did not immediately flock all to one side or the other. Men like Henry were clearly opposed. Madison clearly in favor. But a great many fell somewhere in-between.
A good example of this is Governor Edmund Randolph. Although Randolph had mixed feelings about the proposed documents, he did not stay away from the ratifying convention like Governor Hancock in Massachusetts. Randolph declared that he had refused to sign because of the Philadelphia Convention’s decision to demand an up or down ratification vote from the states, rather than allowing the states to offer amendments. Even so, Randolph declared that he believed that a new and more powerful government was necessary, and that this constitution, with some amendments, was the best hope for the future.
George Mason spoke next, particularly focused on the power of the new federal government to levy direct taxes. He objected to the double taxation, that the people would suffer as both the state and federal governments demanded revenue. Mason also did not call for outright rejection of the constitution. Rather, he wanted to see amendments, similar to those already proposed by Massachusetts and South Carolina.
Henry Lee, also known as “Light Horse Harry” also spoke early. He attacked the “imbecility” of the Confederation and attacked Patrick Henry’s unwarranted fears of the new government. This caused Henry to give another lengthy rebuttal. He attacked the idea that the people should surrender their rights and privileges in order to improve trade, or to try to become a great and powerful empire. For Henry, nothing could justify the sacrifice of liberty.
Madison also responded in favor of the Constitution. But he was not a great orator. He went off on a historical tangent to explain why ancient republics were different from the needs of the current time. Aside from being rather boring, Madison did not have a strong speaking voice and the person taking notes could not hear much of what he said. Hence, we don’t have a good record of what Madison said at the convention. Beyond that, Madison fell sick about a week into the convention and had to miss several days.
Over several weeks, the delegates debated issues of representation, standing armies, direct taxation, and a host of other concerns. They also debated the amendments already proposed by Massachusetts and South Carolina, trying to determine if these could resolve their concerns and whether Virginia should back them as well.
Over the course of the debate, it became clear that a majority of delegates rejected Henry’s notion that Virginia would be fine to go it alone, without joining the Union. The debate shifted more to a discussion of what amendments, if any, were necessary to make this new government protective of their rights and liberties.
Henry, seeing the writing on the wall, altered his strategy, instead focusing on putting in a great many amendments to limit federal power in the new government. Henry got hold of a letter that former Governor Thomas Jefferson had written to another delegate, from which he read to the convention. Jefferson expressed hope that nine states would ratify to begin the new government, so that things could move along, but that four states would hold out until important amendments could be added.
Several times, Madison and other delegates complained that they were not going through the Constitution, clause by clause, as they had agreed, but rather going off on different tangents, usually started by one of Henry’s tirades. They eventually gave up on trying to go through the document clause by clause, because no one seemed interested in that.
On June 13, Madison wrote to Washington that the outcome would likely be close, and that the Kentucky delegates might hold the outcome in their votes. The anti-federalists began to debate the issue of access to the Mississippi River for trade, something dear to the western delegates. Henry noted that John Jay had recently tried to negotiate a treaty that would sacrifice the Mississippi in exchange for other trade concessions from Spain. Giving more treaty making power to the federal government would allow northern states to undercut Virginia’s interests.
Madison countered this argument by arguing that the weakness of the Confederation had weakened Jay’s bargaining power, forcing him to make that concession. A stronger federal government would, in fact, improve America's power to demand things on the world stage.
As the days of debate continued, it seems Virginia Anti-federalists were trying to draw out the convention until they could work out a deal with New York anti-federalists to agree to a series of amendment demands before these two large states would ratify.
The convention continued on, day after day. As they approached the end of June, the main dispute came down to whether the Convention would ratify the constitution outright, or whether ratification would be contingent on the addition of several amendments.
Because there had been no votes up until this time, neither side was certain of its position. On June 25, delegates called a vote to approve the Constitution, only contingent on the adoption of several amendments. The delegates rejected this by a vote of 88 to 80. Realizing that they had a majority then called for a vote to ratify the Constitution unconditionally. This passed by a vote of 89 to 79.
That, however, did not end things. To get several delegates to support the vote, the Federalists agreed that they would vote on proposed amendments after ratification. Like earlier states, these would be recommended changes, but would not prevent Virginia from joining the union.
The delegates compiled a whopping forty amendments to deal with almost all the concerns raised during the ratification convention. Twenty of these were drawn pretty directly from the Virginia bill of rights, things like freedom of speech and religion, various due process rights, etc. The other twenty amendments were structural, things like a larger Congress with one representative for every 30,000 people, term limits on the president, limitations on direct taxation, a two-thirds vote for commercial legislation. Many of these were quite similar to what other states, like Massachusetts had proposed. I’m not going to go through all twenty of these, but have included links in my blog if you want to read through all of them.
The convention wrapped up. James Madison personally carried Virginia’ ratification to New York to deliver to the Confederation Congress. It received these results on July 15. With that, Virginia became the 10th state to join the union.
Next week: the other big hold out New York considers ratification. To help them along three authors generate a series of articles, known as the Federalist Papers.
T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, pillows, totes, notebooks, wall art, and more. Get your favorite American Revolution logo today. Help support this podcast. https://merch.amrevpodcast.com
American Revolution Podcast is distributed 100% free of charge. If you can chip in to help defray my costs, I'd appreciate whatever you can give. Make a one time donation through my PayPal account. You may also donate via Venmo (@Michael-Troy-20).
You can support the American Revolution Podcast as a Patreon subscriber. This is an option making monthly pledges. Patreon support will give you access to Podcast extras and help make the podcast a sustainable project.
An alternative to Patreon is SubscribeStar. For anyone who has problems with Patreon, you can get the same benefits by subscribing at SubscribeStar.
Help Support this podcast on "BuyMeACoffee.com"
Visit the American Revolution Podcast Bookshop. Support local bookstores and this podcast!
Kevin R. C. Gutzman. “Edmund Randolph and Virginia Constitutionalism.” The Review of Politics, vol. 66, no. 3, 2004, pp. 469–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149191
Kukla, Jon. “A Spectrum of Sentiments: Virginia’s Federalists, Antifederalists, and ‘Federalists Who Are for Amendments,’ 1787-1788.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 96, no. 3, 1988, pp. 276–96. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4249023
SMITH, ROBERT W. “Foreign Affairs and the Ratification of the Constitution in Virginia.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 122, no. 1, 2014, pp. 40–67. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24392923
